“The hour has come .... abandon the practice of Communion standing and in the hand”

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Your opening sentence proved my point.
Prayers and blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Spiller]

I would propose the contrary for consideration. Before Vatican II, everything was just fine in the Catholic Church with reference to the many serious problems that we are facing today. It was only after Vatican II, with the New Mass, with the Communion in the Hand, with the words of the Consecration changed from “for many” to “for all”. that these serious problems arose. To take one example, compare the number of marriage annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA today with the number before Vatican II. It is simply astounding and almost incredible. Nine marriage annulments granted in the USA in 1930, compared to more than 60,000 marriage annulments granted by the Catholic Church in the USA in recent years. And on top of that, as we can see from a recent papal Mass. many Catholics get divorced and remarried outside of the Catholic Church and don’t bother to get a marriage annulment and still, even though they are public figures, with their history well known, they are seen to receive Holy Communion in the hand.

Sorry, but that is not true…

 

[bobzills]

Sorry, but that is not true…

Yes, I would have to agree that the statistics concerning the annulments granted by the Catholic Chburch tribunals in the USA are incredible, at least when compared to what they were before Vatican II. But I believe that the statistics that I have quoted are true and correct:
For example, to pick just two years, one before Vatican II, and one after Vatican II:
Annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
Of course, it can be discussed and debated as to whether or not this tragedy is due at least partly to the practice of Holy Communion in the hand, but as the argument goes, the watering down of Catholic practices has played its role in contributing to the decline in the support for the stability of the family.

 

[EasterJoy]

I would propose the contrary for consideration. Before Vatican II, everything was just fine in the Catholic Church with reference to the many serious problems that we are facing today. It was only after Vatican II, with the New Mass, with the Communion in the Hand, with the words of the Consecration changed from “for many” to “for all”. that these serious problems arose. To take one example, compare the number of marriage annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA today with the number before Vatican II. It is simply astounding and almost incredible. Nine marriage annulments granted in the USA in 1930, compared to more than 60,000 marriage annulments granted by the Catholic Church in the USA in recent years. And on top of that, as we can see from a recent papal Mass. many Catholics get divorced and remarried outside of the Catholic Church and don’t bother to get a marriage annulment and still, even though they are public figures, with their history well known, they are seen to receive Holy Communion in the hand.

The problem is, these are not problems experienced by Catholics alone. Divorces have skyrocketed in every sector, because social stigma and economic necessity have been largely erased as reasons for non-marriages to stay together. Living in a marriage that is no marriage at all is preferable to being shunned by all your friends and possibly watching your kids go hungry.

Quite frankly, everything was not “just fine” before Vatican II. No longer does society tell a woman who is being abused at home that abuse is her bed to lie in, and possibly even her own fault. No longer is she required to be celibate for life because she unknowingly made her sacred vow to a man who had never had either the intention or the ability to make the same vow to her.

With nine annulments, you can be certain that there were some non-marriages staying together and trying to act like marriages, or some people who had every right to marry who were not marrying, because the validity of their previous marriage was improperly judged. (I mean by the couple and their family and social circle, not necessarily by the Church: there are still people who think that an annulment makes children of the presumed marriage illegitimate! I have no real knowledge one way or the other of what the tribunals were doing.)

I know we did not have the shocking level of spiritual, emotional, and psychological immaturity that we have now, but in the 1930s many real mental illnesses were still improperly judged to be due to a moral deficit. They did the best that they knew, based on their knowledge of the workings of the brain at the time, but in retrospect the standard was was not humane, let alone charitable. We could not justly return to the same standards, since we have a better knowledge of what the realities of human nature are.

At any rate, none of that had anything to do with where or how anybody was receiving Holy Communion, then or now. If you try to use that as a reason by which the heirarchy should reverse the permission to receive Holy Communion in the hand, I think the reason must be rejected as invalid.

 

[bobzills]

The problem is, these are not problems experienced by Catholics alone. Divorces have skyrocketed in every sector, because social stigma and economic necessity have been largely erased as reasons for non-marriages to stay together. Living in a marriage that is no marriage at all is preferable to being shunned by all your friends and possibly watching your kids go hungry…
At any rate, none of that had anything to do with where or how anybody was receiving Holy Communion, then or now. If you try to use that as a reason by which the heirarchy should reverse the permission to receive Holy Communion in the hand, I think the reason must be rejected as invalid.

OK. I will try to answer the points you have brought up.
First of all, the question as to whether or not the increase in the number of annulments granted by the Church in the USA has mirrored the increase in the number of divorces granted in the USA.Let’s compare the number of divorces with the number of annulments in the USA.
Divorces in the USA
1930: 195, 961
1979: 1,179,000
1998: 1,135,000
Annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
The divorces have increased by a factor of about 6 (5.9)
The annulments in the RCC have increased over the same period by a factor of 6824, or more than one thousand times as much as the divorces in the USA at large.
As to whether or not this is related to receiving Holy Communion in the hand, I think that it can be argued and discussed as to whether this watering down of the respect for the stability of the family is correlated to this practice, since it has been already brought up that the practice leads to a lessening of respect for things sacred.

 

[Spiller]

Yes, I would have to agree that the statistics concerning the annulments granted by the Catholic Chburch tribunals in the USA are incredible, at least when compared to what they were before Vatican II. But I believe that the statistics that I have quoted are true and correct:
For example, to pick just two years, one before Vatican II, and one after Vatican II:
Annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
Of course, it can be discussed and debated as to whether or not this tragedy is due at least partly to the practice of Holy Communion in the hand, but as the argument goes, the watering down of Catholic practices has played its role in contributing to the decline in the support for the stability of the family.

I have no problem with the accuracy of the numbers. What I have a problem with are people trying to associate the change to VC2.

 

[paramedicgirl]

The Vatican Publishing House, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, has just published a book by the Most Rev. Athanasium Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of Karaganda (in Kazakhstan), called Dominus Est. Reflections from Central Asia on Holy Communion. The Preface of this book is written by the Most Rev. Malcolm Ranjith, the new secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,

Among his comments in the Preface:…

• **“The hour has come to review and, if necessary, abandon the practice of Communion standing and in the hand” **
• “speaking of Communion in the hand, it must be admitted that the practice was improperly and quickly introduced"
• **"**this practice is decreasing and those responsible not only demand that the faithful receive the Holy Eucharist standing, but even eliminate all kneelers, forcing the faithful to remain standing"
• “This gesture has contributed to a gradual and increased weakening of the attitude of reverence toward the sacred Eucharist Species, whereas the previous practice had better safeguarded that sense of reverence."
• **"**defend it in the midst of dangerous distortions of the faith that this situation continues to create."

---

I like him! He speaks the truth.

 

[MrS]

I like him! He speaks the truth.

Thanks, I agree…

now, if we can just stay on (or at least close to) the topic of the pros and cons of each way to receive…

or at least have a separate poll (did I say that) on the question of annulments being a fruit of Vat II.

 

[lampstand]

I think this is rather unrealistic. I don’t foresee any major administrative changes like this any time soon. It would, also, add a lot more time than just “a couple more minutes” to the Communion process. There are a lot of people who miss the 1950s, but there are also many who don’t. I never thought of myself as less Catholic than somebody else.

 

[seekerz]

These threads about communion and sacred music and language always make me chuckle. Sorry, no offense, but if tradition is what we seek why not receive the Lord’s body the way the Apostles received Him their first time? That 's about as traditional as you can get. In their zeal to spread the gospel, I rather doubt that our first Church leaders took pains to teach everyone Gregorian chants and Latin, either.

Somehow, long before them it seems that David had the right idea: true praise and reverence comes from the heart, not from a particular formula or set practice. Do not the prophets themselves cry this out to the tradition-bound Jews, that real worship comes from the heart?

Don’t misunderstand; tradition is valuable and to be respected and cherished, but what we should be losing sleep over is the state of people’s hearts! Fix that an all the rest falls into place. Push tradition without spiritual renewal and the result is white-washed tombs.

 

[brockmac]

First let me state that for years I received in the hand, but changed to the tongue a few years ago because for me, it is a reminder to myself of how unworthy I am to receive the precious body and blood of my Lord. I do however know many people whose piety and devotion to the Eucharist is beyond question who choose to receive in the hand. In fact, I’m married to one.

As to kneeling, I suspect that if we were required to kneel, people would have an increased reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, as the Church’s insistance on kneeling would reinforce the teaching that the Sacrament is the truly present Body and Blood of our Lord. However, I think there are other things that could do this as well. For instance, restoring the use of pattens, better cathechesis, and MORE ADORATION. IMHO, every parish should be required to have at least one day a week of adoration.

The phrase lex orandi, lex credendi (we believe as we pray) keeps coming to my mind as I think about these things. I think we should bring back the Communion rail, but we have to be very careful not to make blanket assumptions of the interior disposition of those who choose to receive standing and in the hand, so long as HMC allows the practice.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I think this is rather unrealistic. I don’t foresee any major administrative changes like this any time soon. It would, also, add a lot more time than just “a couple more minutes” to the Communion process. There are a lot of people who miss the 1950s, but there are also many who don’t. I never thought of myself as less Catholic than somebody else.

I think the argument that Communion would take longer is a very poor argument. Can you imagine someone standing at the judgment seat of God and telling Him that they were too hurried to display proper reverence to Him?

 

[paramedicgirl]

These threads about communion and sacred music and language always make me chuckle. Sorry, no offense, but if tradition is what we seek why not receive the Lord’s body the way the Apostles received Him their first time? That 's about as traditional as you can get. In their zeal to spread the gospel, I rather doubt that our first Church leaders took pains to teach everyone Gregorian chants and Latin, either.

Somehow, long before them it seems that David had the right idea: true praise and reverence comes from the heart, not from a particular formula or set practice. Do not the prophets themselves cry this out to the tradition-bound Jews, that real worship comes from the heart?

Don’t misunderstand; tradition is valuable and to be respected and cherished, but what we should be losing sleep over is the state of people’s hearts! Fix that an all the rest falls into place. Push tradition without spiritual renewal and the result is white-washed tombs.

And how did the apostles receive Our Lord at the Last Supper? The visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emerich state this:

Again he prayed and taught; his words came forth from his lips like fire and light, and entered into each of the Apostles, with the exception of Judas. He took the paten with the pieces of bread (I do not know whether he had placed it on the chalice) and said: ‘Take and eat; this is my Body which is given for you.’ He stretched forth his right hand as if to bless, and, whilst he did so, a brilliant light came from him, his words were luminous, the bread entered the mouths of the Apostles as a brilliant substance, and light seemed to penetrate and surround them all, Judas alone remaining dark.

which certainly makes it appear that the apostles received the Host in the mouth. At any rate, they were all priests and bishops, so it is irrelevant whether they received on the tongue or in the hand, as their hands were consecrated to touch the Sacred Species.

 

[paramedicgirl]

And how did the apostles receive Our Lord at the Last Supper? The visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emerich state this:

which certainly makes it appear that the apostles received the Host in the mouth. At any rate, they were all priests and bishops, so it is irrelevant whether they received on the tongue or in the hand, as their hands were consecrated to touch

 

[ethelzguy]

While I do see some hand communicants receiving rather casually, I can’t help but let my mind wander back to the days of “the rail”. Our rail was around for over a decade after most others had disappeared.

I well remember the priests speeding down the rail, rambling off “Bodyocrise, Bodyocrise, Bodyocrise, Bodyocrise…” In retrospect, it wasn’t all that reverent as I recall.

 

[elt1956]

I like him! He speaks the truth.

I think the irreverence of the laity in the church today, doesn’t stem from accepting Communion in the hand. How can that one ritual be the base cause of irreverence? I think it is due to the lack of many things, some of which are: First and formost, lack of understanding by many clergy of what Vatican II and its implementation means, lack of adult education, lack of teen education, the almost complete demise of Catholic Parochial Schools and teachers in those schools understanding the truths of our Faith, lack of understanding by everyone of what the Mass is about. Let’s not lay the blame for the lack of belief of many Catholics on the form of Mass that is said, either NO, or TLM. Peace.

 

[Leeta]

Obviously, folks who are physically unable to kneel were given Communion also, just as now in the Extraordinary rite Mass I attend. Most of the time the priest comes to them in their pew. It is no problem.

The problem is Communion in the hand, as it is practiced now, was not introduced by ANY council or Pope or Church Father. Its’ use is a crass disregard for the reverence due to our Lord’s bodily presence. No effort is made to pick up particles or purify the hands of the communicant.

 

[David_Poem]

The Vatican Publishing House, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, has just published a book by the Most Rev. Athanasium Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of Karaganda (in Kazakhstan), called Dominus Est. Reflections from Central Asia on Holy Communion. The Preface of this book is written by the Most Rev. Malcolm Ranjith, the new secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,

Among his comments in the Preface:…

• **“The hour has come to review and, if necessary, abandon the practice of Communion standing and in the hand” **
• “speaking of Communion in the hand, it must be admitted that the practice was improperly and quickly introduced"
• **"**this practice is decreasing and those responsible not only demand that the faithful receive the Holy Eucharist standing, but even eliminate all kneelers, forcing the faithful to remain standing"
• “This gesture has contributed to a gradual and increased weakening of the attitude of reverence toward the sacred Eucharist Species, whereas the previous practice had better safeguarded that sense of reverence."
• **"**defend it in the midst of dangerous distortions of the faith that this situation continues to create."

---

Well lets go back to the Bible on this When Jesus was doing the last supper. When you read it its very simple ,cut and dry.Its what happens years later the church has put strings on the simple bread and wine.I am all for glass of wine and a dish of bread.Why does everyone makes things harder then it should be?

 

[MrS]

Well lets go back to the Bible on this When Jesus was doing the last supper. When you read it its very simple ,cut and dry.Its what happens years later the church has put strings on the simple bread and wine.I am all for glass of wine and a dish of bread.Why does everyone makes things harder then it should be?

… where could I ever begin to unravel this post…

.

 

[elt1956]

Obviously, folks who are physically unable to kneel were given Communion also, just as now in the Extraordinary rite Mass I attend. Most of the time the priest comes to them in their pew. It is no problem.

The problem is Communion in the hand, as it is practiced now, was not introduced by ANY council or Pope or Church Father. Its’ use is a crass disregard for the reverence due to our Lord’s bodily presence. No effort is made to pick up particles or purify the hands of the communicant.

If Communion in the hand has not been approved by any Council, Pope, or Church Father, who instituted it and when?